Articles

Junk Science is easy to identify once you have become sensitive to it. The dead giveaway is when faulty scientific data and faulty analysis are used to advance a special interest group. Remember our motto: The solution to evolution is education!

I doubt seriously that there is a Creation Science ministry anywhere that will not openly respond in print to the July 2002 article written in the Scientific American magazine entitled 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense. The article was written by none less than the editor in chief, John Rennie.

[Un-]Scientific American is one of the liberal presses best mechanisms for disseminating evolutionary propaganda. I read it only to know what the enemy is up to; I do not recommend that others read it. Of course, it ranks right up there with other propaganda magazines like National Geographic and Smithsonian.

If you have ever doubted the usefulness and achievements of the creation science ministry and message in the promotion of the Kingdom of God doubt no more. The article 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense is proof positive that major evolutionists are running scared, grasping at any straw in the wind in order to prop up their philosophical position and to try to make it appear legitimate in the eyes of the public.

That the editor in chief of the magazine would make such a major effort to rally the troops is even more a vindication of our purpose and its effect. Frankly, rebutting the points he makes is too easy and one might be led to think that these are the arguments of an unworthy or poorly educated opponent, but this is hardly the case when dealing with such a widely respected and prominent evolutionist as John Rennie.

I shall quote from this article and respond where appropriate.

When Charles Darwin introduced the theory of evolution through natural selection 143 years ago, the scientists of the day argued over it fiercely, but the massing evidence [from various scientific fields] gradually established evolutions truth beyond reasonable doubt. Today that battle has been won everywhere - except in the public imagination.

The various theories of evolution have never been universally accepted at any time in the past. As documented in previous editions of this newsletter the general theory of evolution has existed since the Garden of Eden. It is not universally accepted now and apparently individuals in the public are smart enough to know that there are serious flaws in the data and analysis supposedly supporting the evolution theories. His comment is an appeal for fellow evolution believers to tighten the ranks, beat their chests more loudly and to evangelistically defend evolutionary doctrine and dogma. Listen to this statement:

Besieged teachers and others may increasingly find themselves on the spot to defend evolution and refute creationism. The arguments that creationists use are typically specious and based on misunderstandings of (or outright lies about) evolution, but the number and diversity of the objections can put even well-informed people at a disadvantage.

What is besieging these teachers? Could it be that truth: real scientific evidence; reason and logic; the application of scientific laws; the obvious design of natural processes and creatures; and, a correct evaluation of the physical data refute evolutionism? Rennie also indirectly points to his biggest problem - the number of initiated evolutionists is eroding. True, the total number of evolutionists graduating from our secular (and, unfortunately, non-secular institutions) is increasing but the number of those defecting to creationism is also increasing and at an ever increasing rate. Maybe there is a good reason for this.

(Please remember that these are Rennies 15 answers to creationist nonsense.) What is his first point?

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

What is his support for his statement that creationists claim derogatorily that evolution theory is not true because it is only a theory? He proceeds to indict the public school system for not properly teaching students the definition that he wants used to define the word theory. Blaming creationists for the shortcomings in the public school system that they (evolutionists) control is not a valid argument in support of his claim. In addition, I am unaware that any serious scientist would use such an argument. Theories are perfectly useful things in science and we all use them all the time.

There is a truth to it, however, when you follow the logic. I was taught in school about the Law of Gravity. Today, evolutionists like to call it the Theory of Gravity.

What is the difference between the Theory of Gravity and the Theory of Evolution? There is an incredible difference between the two. Scientists can test the Theory of Gravity. They get consistent results and make useful predictions from their research on gravity. We use gravity every day to live our lives, to put communication satellites in space and to find new astronomical objects based upon the known effects of gravity.

No theory of evolution may make such a claim. No theory of evolution may be tested because we cannot go back in time to observe it. We cannot duplicate a primordial earth, place it in orbit around a star and observe life evolve from nonlife.

Attempts to prove that life could have evolved in a chemical soup have totally failed to produce even the basic building blocks necessary for life (nor to explain where the chemical soup came from). These experiments have actually proved the impossibility of evolution, much to the chagrin of evolutionists.

Natural Selection was Darwins alternative wording for what he was really observing which was Artificial Selection (that is man directed breeding experiments). The Laws of Genetics are conservative, not creative. Genetics will never produce what evolutionists claim which is an upward increase in intelligence and/or complexity by random chance. Genetics actually produces either neutral mutations or mutations which go downward leading to a loss of information. Worse still, the term Survival of the Fittest applies equally well to creationism as it does to evolutionism.

Finally, no theory of evolution has true predictive power. Darwin predicted that innumerable transition fossils would eventually be found to fill in all those nasty missing links. Today, there are more gaps in the Fossil Record than were known in Darwins time. The Fossil Record is now known to show many things contradictory to evolution theory. The Fossil Record contains many bushes, not one tree of life. All phyla are known to exist back to the Cambrian Explosion. Even complex vertebrates and invertebrates have been found in Pre-Cambrian layers.

Evolution is not wrong because it is only a theory. Evolution is wrong because it is a totally useless philosophy for the pursuit of scientific knowledge.

2. Natural selection is based on circular reasonings: the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are the fittest.

This statement is actually a self fulfilling prophecy; it is a valid tautology (circular logic) simply because of the form of the logic. Creationists do not attack evolution theory by making this statement. Rennie is misrepresenting our position.

Creationists attack evolution theory for the far more insidious circular logic which is used by evolutionists to date the Fossil Record. Evolutionists use index or key fossils, usually some specific species of shellfish, to date the sedimentary layers. Then they tell us how old the shellfish fossils are by the layers they are found in. In addition, evolutionists falsely support their previously determined dates with modern technology, which is riddled with false assumptions, in order to validate their claims.

His claim is without merit.

3. Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be recreated.

Well, you have me there. Evolution does make claims about events that were not observed and can never be recreated. Of course, I have already stipulated that at least some of the claims, statements, beliefs and concepts of evolutionism are falsifiable because they are inconsistent with observed facts or they lack predictive prowess.

Creationists openly declare microevolution, best understood as lateral adaptation within a specific gene pool, as an established fact. Microevolution is what we see when we intentionally breed purebred horses, cows and dogs. It is purely variation within the created kind and does not allow for the biological transformation from one biological kind into a different biological kind.

In defense of evolution Rennie writes: Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related. [Emphasis added, ed.]

Macroevolution, the change of reptiles into mammals or birds has never been observed, repeated nor studied directly. The ranking of fossils to prove evolution produces a different tree from every evolutionist. DNA sequences produce conflicting results and a hopeless disarray of conflicting data.

The genuine existence of microevolution cannot be used to support the unfounded belief in macroevolution. Small neutral or downward changes in genes cannot achieve huge upward increases in intelligence and/or complexity.

4. Increasingly, scientists doubt the truth of evolution.

This is truly the most humorous of the statements that Mr. Rennie writes in his article. I stipulated previously that the shear necessity of having to write 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense was proof positive that the major evolutionary philosophers are running scared and trying to desperately rally their troops in defense of their cause. Mr. Rennie dogmatically states, No evidence suggests that evolution is losing adherents.

Just who does he think he can fool with such a statement? (They lost me as an adherent years ago.) His article is an admission that they are losing adherents from the public and among intellectually honest scientists. If evolution theory was irrefutable then there would be no need to defend it and any attack upon it would be useless and inappropriate, the act of an insane person.

The upper echelon of evolutionary adherents knows that it is losing other less informed adherents at what is, to it, an alarmingly high rate. In a separate editorial [page 10] written by his fellow editors at the Scientific American to introduce and entice their readers to read Mr. Rennies article, the editors comment:

Preaching to the converted is unrewarding, so why should Scientific American publish an article about errors of creationism [see page 78]? Surely this magazines readers dont need to be convinced. Unfortunately, skepticism of evolution is more rampant than might be supposed. A Gallup Poll from 1999 and a National Science Board poll from 2000 both revealed that close to half the American public rejects evolution.

Well, I read it and I am not convinced. If his fellow editors know the truth about the situation, then why cant Mr. Rennie see it? Why does he feel compelled to lie about the situation when it is a well known fact?

Dr. Eugenie C. Scott, the vitriolic defender of pure evolutionism, received the 2002 Public Service Award from the National Science Board (same as the poll mentioned above). She accepted this honor and defended her winning it because it highlights the importance of scientists taking the anti-evolution [creationism] movement seriously. Well, if she knows they have a problem then why cant Mr. Rennie admit it, too?

In 1999, Gallup took a poll in which it asked respondents how many of them agreed with the following statement: God created humans in their present form within the past 10,000 years or so.

Of those responding to the poll: 55% of the people with a high school education or less responded in favor of the statement; 45% of those with some college, but not having graduated, agreed with the statement; 40% of those who had graduated from college agreed with the statement; and, almost 30% of those who had earned a postgraduate degree agreed with the statement.

What does this poll actually prove? It proves that if you dogmatically indoctrinate (brain wash) people long enough with a faith in evolutionary fairy tales, they will eventually believe them in spite of the evidence to the contrary. Note that even after 16+ years of dogmatic indoctrination almost 30% of postgraduate degreed individuals still accepted creationism!

No! Elitist evolutionists are running scared and they all know it whether or not they are willing to admit it to outsiders. It serves no purpose to deny, deceive or try to hide the truth.

No, Mr. Rennie is wrong. Many scientists doubt the truth of evolution. Mr. Rennie is a deceiver and his fellow scientists know it.

5. The disagreements among even evolutionary biologists show how little solid science supports evolution.

Mr. Rennie writes in response to this correct creationist observation:

Evolutionary biologists passionately debate diverse topics: how speciation happens, the rates of evolutionary change, the ancestral relationships of birds and dinosaurs, whether Neanderthals were a species apart from modern humans, and much more. These disputes are like those found in all other branches of science. Acceptance of evolution as a factual occurrence and a guiding principle is nonetheless universal in biology.

For some reason Mr. Rennie is continuously guilty of the all inclusive nature of his belief system. He cannot stop using all, universal or never statements. Acceptance of evolution as a factual occurrence and a guiding principle is NOT universal in biological studies. While I was trained as a general scientist, my most concentrated studies occurred in the biological fields. I do not believe in evolution any longer, therefore, the acceptance of evolution is not universal.

Much more to the point, the disputes he mentions are not like those found in all other branches of science. No one disputes the purpose of the various organs within a body whether they believe in evolutionism or creationism. In the past few decades claims that homosexuality was genetically inherited; cold fusion had been discovered; or, that there was a time when people thought that the earth was flat have all been thoroughly disproved.

The passionately debated diverse topics which occur between evolutionary believing biologists deal with whose opinion will hold sway at the current time. Their debates are all about brinksmanship, who can scream the loudest and make themselves a reputation. Their debates deal over the interpretation of fragments of physical evidence and the best story to tell about how it will support the house of cards which they so desperately want to uphold. Their debates are not at all about the factual occurrence of evolution, it is all about ego.

If there really were irrefutable proof of evolutionary speciation; if there really were irrefutable proof about rates of evolutionary change in biological life forms; if there were irrefutable evidence to prove that dinosaurs evolved into birds; then there would never be passionately debated diverse topics.

Mr. Rennies argument is false on its face value.

6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

Mr. Rennie is putting words into the mouths of creationists which were never there. No serious creation believing scientist would use such terminology. I have had school children (confused by evolutionary claims that humans did come from monkeys/apes, as taught in many public schools) and adults (usually only trying to be humorous) make such enquiries of me.

Mr. Rennie only wrote two short paragraphs to ridicule this statement, and rightly so. Anyone knowledgeable of evolutionary claims would know that evolutionists claim only that monkeys and humans had an unknown common ancestor.

What Mr. Rennie has done, again, is to try to blame creationists for problems that exist in our public education system.

Mr. Rennies statement is inappropriate.

7. Evolution cannot explain how life first appeared on earth.

This statement is true whether Mr. Rennie agrees or not. This statement is not creationist nonsense. Mr. Rennie admits immediately that evolutionists do not know how life first appeared on earth. If they admit not knowing how it happened, then they cannot explain it.

Mr. Rennie wrote:

The origin of life remains very much a mystery, but biochemists have learned about how primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the foundation for cellular biochemistry.

This statement is patently false. It is unbelievable that such a prominent evolutionist, editor-in-chief of a supposedly scientific magazine, would even dare to make such a proclamation. Microbiologists and microchemists are continuously bringing to light facts which prove that nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life could not possibly form self-replicating, self-sustaining units. To claim further that nonliving materials have thought and are capable of organizing themselves is ludicrous personification.

Microbiologists and microchemists have not learned how nonliving materials could become living materials by random chance. For example, the famous Miller-Urey experiment produced more tar than amino acids.

The science textbooks used in our public school systems are in a double-minded situation. In one chapter they will state that spontaneous generation of living forms is impossible because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and in another chapter they will espouse the view that life on earth came about through purely naturalistic mechanistic means. You cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Rennie is wrong. Evolutionism cannot explain how life first appeared on earth!

8. Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.

Mr. Rennie counters this creationist argument by writing only two short paragraphs. Because of his brevity I will quote his first paragraph in its entirety.

Chance plays a part in evolution (for example, in the random mutations that can give rise to new traits), but evolution does not depend on chance to create organisms, proteins or other entities. Quite the opposite: natural selection, the principal known mechanism of evolution, harnesses nonrandom change by preserving desirable (adaptive) features and eliminating undesirable (non-adaptive) ones. As long as the forces of selection stay constant, natural selection can push evolution in one direction and produce sophisticated structures in surprisingly short times.

I would hope that the uninitiated (read non-devout evolutionist) reader would see the faith statements made in this paragraph. The only random mechanism which occurs in nature and is claimed by evolutionists to produce the change of one biological life form into another kind of biological life form is genetic mutation. The word mutation means copying error.

Evolutionists must admit that genetic information is contained in living organisms. They must admit that if the information is copied perfectly from one generation to the next, then there is no change over time and progressive upward increases in information and complexity could not occur in nature.

The Laws of Genetics are conservative and not creative. Microevolution, lateral adaptation within a gene pool, does occur in nature. It provides for the variations which we observe within a kind of organism. We use this God given characteristic to take Heinz 57 dogs and breed purebred varieties of dogs (Poodle, German Shepherd, etc.). It accounts for the ethnic appearances of people. Mutations can and do cause slight changes (modifications) in structures, but mutations cannot produce new structures.

The evolutionist faith statement that slight modifications produce big changes given enough time is pure fiction. No one has ever observed a new structure come into existence. We have seen the loss of a structure that already existed. We have seen the accidental duplication of a structure (two-headed turtle, fifth leg on a calf). We have seen the accidental (and intentional) rearrangement of structures (Fruit Flies with legs where wings should be). We have never observed a new structure come into existence.

Nor does Mr. Rennie give us any examples to defend his position. He only claims that natural selection is a known mechanism, which it most assuredly is not. If it were a known mechanism then all scientists would have to agree that it was known, because it had been proven to be so, which is not the case.

He goes on to make another faith statement: As long as the forces of selection stay constant, natural selection can push evolution is one direction . . ." Who observed that they were constant? Have they remained constant? Can random events be directional? Doesnt the argument that there is no outside guiding force or intellect preclude the ability to have direction?

What is the proof that he offers in defense of his position? His second paragraph is:

As an analogy, consider the 13-letter sequence TOBEORNOTTOBE. Those hypothetical million monkeys, each pecking out one phrase a second, could take as long as 78,800 years to find it among the 26 to the 13 power sequences of that length. But in the 1980s Richard Hardison of Glendale College wrote a computer program that generated phrases randomly while preserving the position of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed (in effect, selecting for phrases more like Hamlets). On average, the program recreated the phrase in just 336 iterations, less than 90 seconds. Even more amazing, it could reconstruct Shakespeares entire play in just four and a half days.

These two paragraphs quoted here are his entire defense against the creationist position. His argument is an appeal to the absurd.

He doesnt address where the letters came from in the first place. He doesnt stipulate how they got in that order in the first place. He doesnt rationalize why that sequence would have meaning except for previous intelligence and the prior knowledge of Shakespeares plays.

Richard Hardison exercised intelligence in writing his computer program. He simply used a random letter generator to produce the desired string of characters in a short time. A gambler at Las Vegas could duplicate the process given a little more time. By the way, where did the computer, printer and paper he used come from?

In the 13-letter sequence cited above there is no benefit to one letter being in a certain place within the sequence unless an outside intelligence determines that there is a benefit to it. There is no benefit to having a finger unless there is already a hand to connect it to and a preexisting brain to tell it what to do. A man-made simulation or special effect is not proof; it is a common Hollywood trick. Last, simply because Hardison was able to do it under a controlled circumstance doesnt mean that it could or would happen in nature.

There is no mechanism in nature to preserve randomly produced information which might be useful later, but is not useful in the present. Charles Darwin marveled at the human eye and wondered how a million beneficial additive mutations could accumulate over time to produce one. He thought that it would be impossible, but concluded that it must have happened because we have eyes!

Finally, this is an illogical argument. The argument is that if something is possible, even if it has only a one in one billion chance of happening, then it must have happened. A similar argument is made by devout evolutionists to claim that there must be alien life forms out there somewhere. The idea is that if there were only one planet per galaxy which would have the necessary ingredients for life, and there are at least 100 billion galaxies, then there must be alien life somewhere in the universe.

But is this argument compelling? No! There are many things that have a zero chance of happening. All the speculation by all the evolutionists in the world will not make certain things happen. The earth will not start spinning in the opposite direction tomorrow even if there is an infinitesimal possibility that it could happen. The Law of Gravity will not stop working tomorrow even if there is an infinitesimal possibility that it could happen.

The chance of winning the Florida State Lottery is one chance in 15,000,000 chances per week, 52 weeks per year. This is equal to saying the there is one chance in the number one followed by seven zeros. Someone does win it occasionally because many millions of people pay to play. It is obvious from the chance of winning, however, that playing the Florida State Lottery is really just a tax on stupidity.

It is widely accepted in the field of probability science that if the chance of something happening is greater than one chance in the number one followed by 30 zeros it is impossible on earth. If the chance of something happening is greater than one chance in the number one followed by 50 zeros it is impossible in the universe.

Sir Fred Hoyle, an evolutionary astronomer, stopped believing that evolution could occur on earth when he calculated the probability of evolution occurring even once on earth. His conclusion was that the chance of evolution occurring even once on earth was the same as a tornado going through a junkyard and assembling a Boeing 747 ready to fly. The chance of this happening is equal to one chance in the number one followed by 40,000 zeros. A number this large dramatically proves that evolution is impossible regardless of your appeal to even the slightest possibility of it occurring.

His colleague, Chandra Wickramasinghe, likened the probability of evolution occurring even once on earth to the chance of 50,000,000 blind men all solving a Rubiks Cube at exactly the same time.

No, an appeal to mathematics is the last thing that a knowledgeable evolutionist would want to do. As a matter of fact, they dont have a chance, none at all.

No, Mr. Rennie, your argument lacks any merit whatsoever!

9. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that systems must become more disordered over time. Living cells therefore could not have evolved from inanimate chemicals, and multi-cellular life could not have evolved from protozoa.

He starts his counter argument by writing:

This argument derives from a misunderstanding of the Second Law. If it were valid, mineral crystals and snowflakes would also be impossible, because they, too, are complex structures that form spontaneously from disordered parts.

If there is anyone here that does not understand the Laws of Thermodynamics, it is Mr. Rennie! Frankly, his argument is irrelevant and poorly reasoned. It shows his wholesale ignorance of these Laws.

Snowflakes and mineral crystals form the structures that they do, under the correct natural conditions, not because the Second Law is reversed in local environments, but because of the inherent molecular structures that make up snowflakes and mineral crystals. It is the shape of the atoms and molecules in them that determines how they fall together in their interlocking fashion. The visible macrostructure is merely indicative of their invisible microstructure. No outside intelligence is necessary at the time of their formation because the invisible God has given them specific inherent shapes.

Mr. Rennie justifies his position with what has to be one of the oldest and worst arguments evolutionists have ever come up with to argue against irreversible entropy. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is the law of decay, deterioration, disorder and spontaneous degeneration.

Mr. Rennie next wrote: The Second Law actually states that the total entropy of a closed system (one that no energy or matter leaves or enters) cannot decrease.

Actually, the Second Law says that entropy always increases in a closed system. A closed system is one that does not exchange any energy with its surrounding environment. This is in direct contradiction to Mr. Rennies statement, because Mr. Rennie misstated the Second Law.

The only time that entropy can decrease in a closed system is if there is an input of directed energy from an intelligent outside source specifically directed at reversing the spontaneous degeneration. Therefore, the universe itself is the only closed system because nothing exists outside of it with which to exchange heat; and, total entropy (disorder) always increases in a closed system.

His next declarative statement was: More important, however, the Second Law permits parts of a system to decrease entropy as long as other parts experience an offsetting increase.

While his statement may appear true to the untrained and gullible, it is without merit. The Second Law is not reversible by random chance in local areas at the expense of other areas. You will never get an increase in complexity (order) or intelligence without the input from a greater intelligence.

The input of undirected energy will not accomplish anything useful; it will only waste work, it will not generate work. The input of undirected energy accomplishes nothing useful. The input of undirected energy will either overload the system and destroy it, or make the system more disordered.

What would happen if I plugged my computer that works on 110 volts into a socket that provides 220 volt electricity? Faster than you can blink your eye it will destroy my computer; but, all I did was to add undirected energy into the system. What would happen if I took a stick of dynamite and placed it in your church building and lit the fuse? It would seriously damage or destroy your church building; but, all I did was to add undirected energy into your church buildings system.

Mr. Rennie then states: Thus, our planet as a whole can grow more complex because the sun pours heat and light [energy] into it, and the greater entropy associated with the suns nuclear fusion more than rebalances the scales.

If the input of undirected energy would accomplish anything useful; if it would give an increase in complexity or intelligence; I would have all the people at our presentations get up and stick their fingers into the nearest wall socket. I would have added undirected energy into their systems, but what would they have learned? They would have learned not to do that again, and, in so doing, their nervous systems would never be quite as good as they were before. All the false arguments in the world will not make Mr. Rennies statement valid.

Last, he writes: Simple organisms can fuel their rise toward complexity by consuming other forms of life and nonliving materials.

Atoms do not make and sustain ever increasing complex molecules by random chance. The random chance events that occur in nature that can produce small molecules by random chance also destroy them just as fast. The molecules to man story of evolutionism is pure mythology believed in only by those who have been initiated into their belief system. It most assuredly has never happened in nature.

By the way, Mr. Rennie, where did all that living and nonliving matter that you so glibly write about and presume into existence come from?

No, Mr. Rennie, you have attempted to misquote for the purposes of deceiving us and we will not be deceived!

10. Mutations are essential to evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.

Mr. Rennies response to counter this creationist argument:

On the contrary, biology has catalogued many traits produced by point mutations (changes at precise positions in an organisms DNA) - bacterial resistance to antibiotics, for example. The mutations that arise in the homeobox (Hox) family of development-regulating genes direct where legs, wings, antennae and body segments are to grow. In fruit flies, for instance, the mutation called Antennapedia causes legs to sprout where antennae should grow. These abnormal limbs are not functional, but their existence demonstrates that genetic mistakes can produce complex structures, which natural selection can then test for possible uses.

First, Mr. Rennie has made the mistake of personification. Biology has not catalogued anything. Evolutionary believing biologists may have claimed to have catalogued various examples of beneficial traits caused by mutations but that does not necessary make it so. Likewise, natural selection is not a person who makes tests.

Second, what is the truth that may be derived from Mr. Rennies own admission?

A) No new trait came into existence. Only a previously existing fully functional limb was accidentally duplicated and placed in a location where it could not function and where it was actually a detriment to the creature.

B) No mutation in a Hox gene has ever been observed to produce a new limb or organ; instead they have been observed to either be neutral in effect or cause the disabling and/or dislocation of a previously existing limb or organ. In either case, the organism was worse off for the experience.

If one follows Mr. Rennies logic to its ultimate conclusion, one is forced to believe that all beneficial features (limbs, wings, eyes, leaves, roots) which we see occurring in natural organisms must have been produced by random chance mistakes in copying previously existing perfect information!

I do not mean to be derogatory about anyone, but if we follow this logic we may define the word mutation as birth defect. Now if someone were to come up to you and say that they believed that humans, or any other biological organisms, are the result of millions of beneficial birth defects being saved and added up over time, what would you say?

Mr. Rennie finalizes his response on this point by writing:

 . . . Functional modules within genes can be spliced together in novel ways. Whole genes can be accidentally duplicated in an organisms DNA, and the duplicates are free to mutate into genes for new, complex features. . . . (Emphasis added - ed.)

Here we go again with the personification of non-intelligent compounds. I can just imagine those accidentally duplicated genes saying to themselves: Gee, lets make a new complex feature. Of course, Mr. Rennie also forgets to explain to us where the previous genetic information that was accidentally duplicated came from.

When Mr. Rennie is able to speak his own dirt into existence where there was only a vacuum, then he may make a man in his own image.

11. Natural selection might explain microevolution, but it cannot explain the origin of new species and higher orders of life.

Mr. Rennie responds:

Evolutionary biologists have written extensively about how natural selection could produce new species. For instance, in the model called allopatry, developed by Ernst Mayer of Harvard University, if a population of organisms were isolated from the rest of its specie by geographical boundaries, it might be subjected to different selective pressures. Changes would accumulate in the isolated population. If those changes became so significant that the splinter group could not or routinely would not breed with the original stock, then the splinter group would be reproductively isolated and on its way toward becoming a new species.

. . . Lynn Margulis of the University of Massachusetts at Amhurst and others have persuasively argued that some cellular organelles, such as the energy-generating mitochondria, evolved through the symbiotic merger of ancient organisms. Thus, science welcomes the possibility of evolution resulting from forces beyond natural selection. Yet those forces must be natural; they cannot be attributed to the actions of mysterious creative intelligences whose existence, in scientific terms, is unproved. (Emphasis added - ed.)

Let us see - what are the truths in these statements? Well, it is true that human authors who believe in evolutionism have written about how evolution could have happened; if certain things had happened in the past (which they were not present to observe); and, if these things had happened, then these unobserved scenarios might have happened. Such is the work of science fiction writers.

Scientists have speculated about the futuristic advancements that would happen with the increase in technological developments. I remember distinctly being shown a film in school 40 years ago showing how cars would one day drive themselves on highways using electronic guidance systems. There have been true scientific visionaries like the science fiction writer Jules Verne. While technological developments have not proceeded as fast in some areas as in others, we have built nuclear submarines and gone to the moon. Men have written persuasively about their dreams and opinions, but these things were not built the way they originally envisioned them.

Evolutionists have written extensively and they have persuasively argued about their beliefs; but, I want to know where is their scientific proof?

Scientific experimentation has actually shown quite the opposite of evolution to be true. All breeding experiments ever done by human intelligence have proven the fixity of the created kinds. How many breeding experiments have been conducted on horses, dogs, cats, roses, corn, etc.? Yet, we always end up with horses, dogs, cats, roses and corn.

Charles Darwin was a breeder of pigeons. He was fully aware that people who breed horses, dogs, cats, roses and corn were using artificial selection to accomplish their desired results. Darwin also knew that if he wrote in support of evolution using artificial selection as the mechanism he would be defeated before he started. This is why he changed the name to natural selection so that no intelligent outside being would be thought to be involved (as Mr. Rennie asserted).

Those who believe in creationism are correct when they say: Natural selection might explain microevolution, but it cannot explain the origin of new species and higher orders of life. This is not a statement of nonsense as Mr. Rennie alleges, but it is a statement of fact.

Mr. Rennie, neither artificial selection, nor natural selection, are able to produce life or higher orders of life!

What a minute, I thought that for evolution to be true speciation had to occur a lot, frequently and often. In addition, this supposedly very common event has to produce radically different structures, organs and features in order to get fish to become reptiles, or reptiles to become birds, or reptiles to become mammals.

Just how often has new speciation had to occur according to evolutionists? Each stage in development would be defined as a new species. Well, there are over one million species of beetles known to exist today. Take all the species alive today, plus all the species which are now extinct, and innumerable millions of species would have to have existed over the eons of supposed evolutionary time.

13. Evolutionists cannot point to any transitional fossils - creatures that are half reptile and half bird, for instance.

Mr. Rennie then starts his response to this creationist claim by writing:

Actually, paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups. One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs. A flocks worth of other feathered fossil species, some more avian and some less, has also been found. A sequence of fossils spans the evolution of modern horses from the tiny Eohippus. Whales had four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and creatures known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus helped to make that transition. Fossil seashells trace the evolution of various mollusks through million of years. Perhaps 20 or more hominids (not all of them our ancestors) fill the gap between Lucy and the australopithecine and modern humans.

This paragraph is so absolutely out of date with current evolutionary findings and positions, and at the same time so absolutely funny, that it borders on being called a tragic comedy. No self respecting evolutionist would utter such obvious error!

Some controversy does still linger around the bird called Archaeopteryx; however, no one disagrees that it is a fully formed and fully functional bird. It does have claws on the wings and a few teeth are found in the beak. These are not uncommon features in birds. Seven current species of birds (including the Ostrich, Hoatzin and common chicken) have teeth or claws or both during part or all of their life cycle. It is not a transitional form; it is a mosaic form of bird containing features also seen in reptiles. Totally modern bird fossils have already been found by evolutionary believing paleontologists in fossil bearing layers dated as being older than Archaeopteryx.

The reference to Eohippus is absolutely ludicrous. The whole Horse Series concept was completely thrown away by leading evolutionists starting in the 1950s!

The preeminent evolutionary paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson believed that horses evolved. But, he was honest enough to admit that the Horse Series drawn up a couple of decades earlier, and propagated to this day in textbooks, was a fraud.

The uniform, continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature. Life of the Past, 1953, p. 119. [Emphasis added - ed.]

Other eminent evolutionists agreed with him.

. . . some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information - what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. Dr. David M. Raup, Evolutionist, Paleontologist and Curator of the Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology, Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Vol. 50, No. 1, January 1979, p. 25. [Emphasis added - ed.]

The popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four-toed, fox-sized creatures, living nearly 50 million years ago, to todays much larger one-toed horse, has long been known to be wrong. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct. Transitional forms are unknown. Boyce Rensberger, Senior Editor of Science 80, in Ideas on Evolution Going Through a Revolution Among Scientists, Houston Chronicle, 5 November 1980, sec. 5, p. 15. [Emphasis added - ed.]

Worse still is that the greatest of evolutionary believing scientists admit that there are no such series of any kind found in the fossil bearing layers.

The late great spokesman for evolutionism, Dr. Stephen J. Gould, wrote:

The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however, reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Evolutions Erratic Pace, Natural History 86 (May 1977): p. 14. [Emphasis added - ed.]

George Gaylord Simpson wrote:

This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists. It is true of almost all orders of all classes, both vertebrate and invertebrate. Tempo and Mode in Evolution (New York: Columbia University Press, 1944), p. 107. [Emphasis added - ed.]

The late Dr. Colin Patterson (the most honest evolutionist that I have ever known), senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, wrote in a letter (I own an original copy of this entire letter):

I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?

. . . You say that I should at least show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived. I will lay it on the line - there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. 10 April 1979 [Emphasis added - ed.]

[Just for grins - I would like to see the evolutionary sequence logically leading to the Duck-billed Platypus!]

As a matter of fact, it was the total lack of transitional fossils that forced Niles Eldredge and Stephen J. Gould to invent their counter explanation to the slow and gradual Darwinian view called Punctuated Equilibria. In essence, they went from believing that evolution occurred too slowly to see, to evolution occurred too fast to see.

Well, lets see, evolutionists and creationists agree that there are no transitional fossils. I guess that means Mr. Rennie has intentionally attempted to deceive his readers!

14. Living things have fantastically intricate features - at the anatomical, cellular and molecular levels - that could not function if they were any less complex or sophisticated. The only prudent conclusion is that they are the products of intelligent design, not evolution.

Yes, this is a creationist argument; it is called the argument from design. It was used by the Apostle Paul in Romans 1:16+. Later, it was used by St. Augustine as one of his five arguments for the existence of God. As Mr. Rennie writes, it was used in the time just prior to Darwin.

This argument from design is the backbone of most recent attacks on evolution, but it is also one of the oldest. In 1802 theologian William Paley wrote that if one finds a pocket watch in a field, the most reasonable conclusion is that someone dropped it, not that natural forces created it there. By analogy, Paley argued, the complex structures of living things must be the handiwork of direct, divine invention. Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species as an answer to Paley: he explained how natural forces of selection, acting on inherited features, could gradually shape the evolution of ornate organic structures.

Mr. Rennie apparently does not know his history of science very well. This argument is not 200 years old, it is 6,000 years old. It has been used in very century since man came into existence. Of course, I would not expect Mr. Rennie to know anything about the Bible and its contents; however, I would expect him to know more about actual history. Perhaps he is also not aware that the formal theory upon which the modern evolution theories are based is 2,500 years old. Then too, the argument over origins and the debate between evolutionism and creationism has been going on since The Garden.

This argument from design is as valid today as it was when Paul, Augustine and Paley used it. The human mind intrinsically knows the difference between randomness and design. When we see a window, we know there was a window maker. Even though the window maker is invisible to us at this time, we know that he existed because of the evidence he left behind.

The argument from design stands on the strength of its own logic. I do not need to defend it further. Mr. Rennie is illogical, irrational and self-deceived.

15. Recent discoveries prove that even at the microscopic level, life has a quality of complexity that could not have come about through evolution.

There are catch phrases that are going around these days to describe this rather obvious argument for creation and against evolution. These phrases include irreducible complexity, specified complexity and intelligent design.

In defense of the reasonableness of evolution, Mr. Rennie first cites the work of the secular Roman Catholic, Dr. Michael Behe of Lehigh University, author of Darwins Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. As Behe correctly points out, if you put the parts from a simple mouse trap into a box and shake them for millions and millions of years you will never get a working mousetrap. The same argument was more elaborately made by the creationist, Paley, two hundred years ago when he attributed the same argument to the parts necessary to make a pocket watch.

The concept is that a machine, system or process will not work if a piece is missing or if the pieces are not in the correct order. In essence, parts have no value unless they are assembled together in a completed whole machine, system or process.

Behe increases the magnitude of the problem by applying this illustration to the flagellum of bacteria. At the microscopic level these whip like structures, which propel the bacteria in any direction they wish, are engineered, assembled and utilized as perfectly as any Rolls-Royce engine. The proteins which are used by the bacteria to produce the flagellum exactly reproduce the rotor, stator, bearing, and universal joint of modern machinery. No component is of any value without all the others and they will not produce the desired results without being assembled into a whole and complete entity.

Behe also uses many other examples from biochemistry and microbiology, such as the chemical sequences used in blood clotting and vision. All of these microbiological machines, systems and processes would require design and assembly by a higher greater intelligence.

In rebuttal, Mr. Rennie offers the following statement:

The key is that flagellums component structures, which Behe suggests have no value apart from their role in propulsion, can serve multiple functions that would have helped favor their evolution. The final evolution of the flagellum might then have involved only the novel recombination of sophisticated parts that initially evolved for other purposes. Similarly, the blood-clotting system seems to involve the modification and elaboration of proteins that were originally used in digestion, according to studies by Russell F. Doolittle of the University of California at San Diego. So, some of the complexity that Behe calls proof of intelligent design is not irreducible at all. [Emphasis added - ed.]

I counted eight statements of faith, or presumption of the occurrence of unseen events, in that one paragraph. How can anyone call this science? It is just story telling; fairy tales for adults.

Mr. Rennie offers no substantive evidence to support any of these eight claims. Nor does he offer an explanation for the existence of the sophisticated parts he mentioned, but instead he presumes that they already existed and were available for recombination. Nor does he explain why the rotor, stator, bearing or universal joint would have had any benefit promoting survival of the bacteria if they were simply unassembled freely floating parts moving around inside the bacteria. Why should these parts have any value to the organism if they were not already the parts designed and assembled into a complete machine which was capable of doing useful work?

It is also a huge leap of faith to believe that a protein that is useful in digestion could somehow become an essential ingredient in the blood clotting process. Likewise, a similar leap of faith was made by the late Dr. Stephen J. Gould, the Marxist from Harvard, who was among a group of evolutionists that believed that a part of the jaw bone of a reptile migrated within the head to become one of the three bones of the inner ear in mammals.

In his last paragraph in response this fifteenth point Mr. Rennie writes:

It is wrong to insinuate that the field of explanations consists only of random processes or designing intelligences. Researchers at the Santa Fe Institute and elsewhere have demonstrated that simple, undirected processes can yield extraordinarily complex patterns.

Mr. Rennie is correct to note that simple mathematical formulas may produce very complex fractal patterns; however, it took an intelligence to write the mathematical formula; it took intelligence to make the pattern following the preprogrammed directive; and, it took intelligence to appreciate the complex pattern that was formed. There is a monstrous difference between a complex pattern that is incapable of accomplishing anything and the simplest of machines. Anyone may appreciate the beauty of a snowflake, but it will never become an essential ingredient in a pumping heart.

Mr. Rennie, you are wrong again, and forever more!

A Brief Review

1. Creationists do not reject the theory of evolution because it is just a theory. We reject the theory of evolution because it is incompatible with the laws, processes, evidences and observations of science.

2. Creationists agree that survival of the fittest and natural selection are at work in nature, but that these mechanisms promote the purity of the kind. We adamantly object to the circular reasoning used to support evolutionism.

3. Microevolution, adaptation and lateral variation within a kind, is wholly accepted within creationism. Macroevolution has never been observed and, therefore, evolution fails the test of verifiability.

4. Many scientists are currently doubting, or giving up entirely, the theory of evolution.

5. There are no facts of evolution, only opinions. This is why there is great disagreement amongst evolution believing biologists.

6. The missing links are missing, because they are missing. They never existed.

7. Evolution theory cannot explain the origin of life. Complex life cannot be the reason for its own existence.

8. Random mutations will never produce what evolutionists claim, the upward increase in intelligence or complexity. Mutations always cause the loss or damage of previously existing information.

9. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is the only Law of science necessary to completely obliterate the theory of evolution. It is the universal law of spontaneous generation and decay, as opposed to the universal faith of evolutionary progress.

10. Mutations degrade previously functioning genes, but they do not produce fully functional new genes.

11. Natural selection, understood through the mechanism of artificial selection, does explain variation within a kind. It is incapable of producing a new kind.

12. If evolution were true, we should see more and more new kinds coming into existence. If creation is true, we would expect to see extinction of previously existing kinds, and no new kinds coming into existence. The current state of measurable extinction is a proof for creation.

13. Even the great evolutionary paleontologists, Drs. Stephen J. Gould, Niles Eldridge and Colin Patterson, have written that there are no transitional life forms, living or fossil.

14. Living creatures, such as the Bombardier Beetle, do prove that they have obvious design.

15. Living organisms do illustrate that they have irreducible complexity, specified complexity and intelligent design.

There are those who say evolution is science and creation is religion. The truth is quite the opposite. Evolutionism is only a faith based religion. Christianity, based as it is on a gospel of creation (Rev. 14:6-7), is a rational, logical and evidence based faith!